On the November 19 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Rose Tennent said of the nationwide protests that have followed the passage of a California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage: "[T]here are so many people at the events that aren't gay." Co-host Jim Quinn replied, "Yeah, they're guilty straights," to which Tennent responded, "Guilty straights -- there we go." Earlier in the broadcast, Quinn stated: "[G]ays never wanted to get married until what -- about five years ago, we started to hear about this? ... [T]his is all -- this is a purely political act." In fact, same-sex couples have brought court cases to overturn bans on same-sex marriage for decades.

According to the website glbtq.com, the first court case challenging a ban on same-sex marriage was brought in Minnesota in 1970. Two men applied for a marriage license and sued the state when their application was rejected "on the sole ground," in the words of the Minnesota Supreme Court, "that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner." The court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage in its 1971 decision. Numerous court cases challenging same-sex marriage bans have been brought since then, including cases in the 1970s, the 1990s, and the current decade.

As Media Matters for America documented, Quinn previously said: "The only thing that -- the only thing that gay marriage produce -- well, gay marriage doesn't produce anything that the state has an interest in. Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us." Quinn later added: "So why don't they charge gay men, especially, higher premiums? Because they're engaged in an activity that will have an impact on that -- on the health care system."

Talkers Magazine lists Quinn & Rose on its "Heavy Hundred" list, which it describes as a list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." According to the show's website, it airs on 18 radio stations and XM Satellite Radio.

From the November 19 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:

TENNENT: You know, Elton John weighed in on all of this, and I thought it was interesting what he said. He said that -- he said, "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership." Hey, that's what we've been saying all along, isn't it?

QUINN: Good grief, the voice of reason.

TENNENT: He said, "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." Now, see, this is interesting, because if that is -- you know, and this has been my argument all along. If there are the same rights -- equal rights within a civil partnership -- why are they going after marriage?

QUINN: Because it -- that's one of the basic underpinnings, one of the basic legs of Western civilization --

TENNENT: Right.

QUINN: -- and Judeo-Christian civilization.

TENNENT: They break that down --

QUINN: Right. Break it down, deconstruct it --

TENNENT: And you've broken down society.

QUINN: Exactly. Exactly. This is a purely -- the whole marriage issue is -- gays never wanted to get married until what -- about five years ago, we started to hear about this?

TENNENT: Yeah.

QUINN: No, this is all -- this is a purely political act.

TENNENT: See, he, actually, John -- Elton John distanced himself from the protesters and all the protests that are taking place in all the cities across the United States. He said, "What is wrong with Proposition 8 is they went for marriage."

[...]

TENNENT: This fringe that is out there -- and they're mobilizing, although they're seemingly bigger than a fringe, but they are still a fringe.

QUINN: Oh, yeah.

TENNENT: They are a fringe.

QUINN: They're very visible; loud.

TENNENT: And they're embarrassing to even other homosexuals in this country. They are. Their behavior, I think it's --

QUINN: Well, they've managed --

TENNENT: -- reprehensible. I really do. What?

QUINN: They've managed to fill the streets, though, with angry people. They get people all worked up about this stuff.

TENNENT: Yeah. And some of the people that are joining them aren't even necessarily gay, either -- you know --

QUINN: Oh, no. They're --

TENNENT: -- there are so many people at the events that aren't gay.

QUINN: Yeah, they're guilty straights.

TENNENT: Guilty straights -- there we go. So, Jim, I got a question for you. All of this -- like, later today, I hope, or possibly Friday, I wanted to go over some of the appointments.

During the November 19 edition of Fox News' Studio B, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, baselessly claimed that Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D) is a "former member of the Communist Party." Discussing the members appointed to the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, which oversees the recount in the Minnesota Senate race, Napolitano stated: "The fifth member of the committee by statute, is the secretary of state, who is a Democrat and a former communist -- former member of the Communist Party." Napolitano provided no evidence to support his claim that Ritchie is "a former communist" or a "former member of the Communist Party."

Napolitano was taking further a smear advanced by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which, as Media Matters for America noted, put out a "background document" suggesting a link between Ritchie and the Communist Party. In that document, the NRSC reprinted an assertion in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that "The Communist Party USA wrote encouragingly of [Ritchie's] candidacy."

The Star Tribune article making the original claim that the "Communist Party USA wrote encouragingly of his candidacy" did not provide any evidence for this claim. According to a search of the Communist Party USA's website, in a June 24, 2006, report, CPUSA political action committee chair Joelle Fishman wrote: "In Minnesota the DFL [Democratic-Farmer-Labor, the state's version of the Democratic Party] candidate for Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, of the League of Rural Voters could play a valuable national role."

Moreover, Napolitano falsely claimed that "the governor appoints a committee of four people" to serve on the canvassing board. In fact, Ritchie named the board members on November 12. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has stated that he approves of the composition of the canvassing board, but did not pick the board. Additionally, The Associated Press reported on November 13 that "Fritz Knaak, [Republican Sen. Norm] Coleman's lead lawyer, said he was comfortable with the board's makeup." The AP quoted Knaak as saying, "The people of this state should feel good about who's on the panel."

From the November 19 edition of Fox News' Studio B with Shepherd Smith:

SMITH: The Republican incumbent, Norm Coleman, holds the slightest of leads -- 215 votes over the Democratic challenger, Al Franken. And election workers are now beginning the laborious task of hand counting -- like that's more accurate than the machines -- all 2.9 million ballots cast. Hand counting -- you go, Minnesota.

But what's a recount without a lawsuit? Al Franken, who's on Capitol Hill today, filed one to determine what to do about some rejected absentee ballots. Our senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, is here. What's going on?

NAPOLITANO: Well, the governor appoints a committee of four people: two Republican judges, two Democratic judges. The fifth member of the committee, by statute, is the secretary of state, who is a Democrat and a former communist -- former member of the Communist Party.

Five people will rule on all contested issues. They don't physically do the counting. They hear arguments from one side or another about whether a ballot should be counted. There are many, many permutations here, because some counties use the old-fashioned mechanical vote, some use electronic, and some use paper ballots. I just finished reading the rules, and there's all kinds of ways.

For example, if a voter circles the name on a paper ballot instead of filling out the block, does that count? Yes. Every benefit is given for every conceivable way to find a vote to count.

During the November 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Mark Levin cited a recent study (subscription required) predicting that an ice age will occur in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years as purported evidence that humans should not "try and control carbon dioxide" emissions that contribute to global climate change. But Levin did not mention that the study's co-author reportedly warned against using the study to argue that "we should stop fighting warming" and stated: "There's no excuse for saying 'we've got to keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.' "

During the segment, Levin read portions of a November 13 London Daily Mail article about the study, which appeared in the weekly journal Nature. In particular, Levin read the following sentence from the Daily Mail article: "Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide -- could actually be the key to averting the chill." Levin then stated: "So, according to these two scientists, we're heading into a global chill, maybe an age of an ice age, and we're gonna try and control carbon dioxide, which is the answer to global cooling. Why the hell don't we just try and leave it alone?" Earlier, after reading the portion of the Daily Mail article that reported "the experts blame the global change on falling -- rather than climbing -- levels of greenhouse gases," Levin asserted: "Well, ladies and gentlemen, without carbon dioxide, we croak. There can be no plant life, and if there's no plant life, there's no oxygen. ... On top of that, without greenhouse gases, the Earth freezes. We should be on our knees every day praying to God, 'Thank you for carbon dioxide.' "

However, Levin did not read the following portions of the Daily Mail article in which study co-author Professor Thomas Crowley explicitly warned against using his study to dismiss the threat posed by global warming:

Professor Crowley said the stark findings do not mean we should stop fighting warming.

But he urged: "Don't push the panic button."

"There's no excuse for saying 'we've got to keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,' " he told Reuters.

"Geologically it's tomorrow, but we have lots of time to argue about the appropriate level of greenhouse gases."

Indeed, several other media outlets have also reported that Crowley cautioned against using the study to argue against taking action to stop global climate change. For example, a November 12 post on the Wired Science blog reported that Crowley said that by continuing to emit greenhouse gases at the current levels, "[w]e're creating a situation at least as dangerous, only going in the opposite direction":

However, Crowley's model, published today in Nature, is not likely to come true. Along came humanity and, to be more precise, the Industrial Age. Our greenhouse gas emissions, he said, are more than enough to alter the Earth's once-frigid destiny.

What's so bad about that?

We're putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, said Crowley, that the planet's climate isn't simply veering from a curve: it's departing at right angles.

Flooding coastal regions and risking drought across much of Earth's surface "does not seem like the normal thing a society would do for self-preservation," he said. "We're creating a situation at least as dangerous, only going in the opposite direction."

A November 12 Agence France-Presse article on the study also reported:

Crowley cautioned those who would seize on the new study to say " 'carbon dioxide is now good, it prevents us from walking the plank into this deep glaciation'."

"We don't want to give people that impression," he said."(...) You can't use this argument to justify [man-made] global warming" [ellipsis in original].

And a November 12 article for National Geographic News reported:

Though this extreme ice age would be unusual, so is the climate that people are creating by emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases, Crowley said.

"It's hard to say what's going to happen," Crowley said. "The very fact that you have this nonglacial [warming] atmosphere with polar ice caps [still present], presents a bizarre scenario."

Media Matters for America has previously documented other instances of conservative media figures using scientific studies to draw or advance conclusions about global climate change that contradict the conclusions of the researchers who conducted the studies. For instance:

• During the August 21, 2007, edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume cited "new research by University of Washington mathematicians [that] shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming," and asserted that "[global warming] skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown." But an August 9, 2007, New Scientist article (subscription required) on the mathematicians' research warned that "[c]limate-change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun's variability can explain global warming -- but [the report's co-author] mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true." According to the article, Tung, who is a University of Washington professor of applied mathematics and an adjunct professor in atmospheric science, says his finding, in New Scientist's words, "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming."

• On the January 21, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul A. Gigot falsely claimed that a study by researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, which found that live plants produce 10 to 30 percent of atmospheric methane, "is turning conventional wisdom about global warming on its head." Editorial page deputy editor Daniel Henninger then claimed that "this is causing big problems for the tree-huggers," telling viewers that methane "is a greenhouse gas, the sort of stuff the Kyoto Treaty is meant to suppress." In fact, in a press release published three days before the Editorial Report aired, the study's authors pointed out that human-caused emissions -- not natural emissions -- "are responsible for the well-documented increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane since pre-industrial times." The authors added that plant emissions do not contribute to "the recent temperature increase known as 'global warming.' "

• On the September 21, 2005, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh selectively read from a year-old article to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph on July 18, 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years. According to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."

From the November 13 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Mark Levin Show:

LEVIN: All right, let me hit another issue here. I was talking about global warming, right? Well, there's global cooling now. This from The Daily Mail. All this will be on MarkLevinShow.com, all of these stories. "It has plagued scientists and politicians for decades, but scientists now say global warming is not the problem. We are actually heading for the next Ice Age, they claim. British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury the east of Berlin [sic: Britain] to 6,000 feet of ice. And what's more, the experts blame global change on falling -- rather than climbing -- levels of greenhouse gases."

Please listen to this. This is important. "Lead authors Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide." Remember that idiot legislator from Westchester County? What the hell was that fool's name? "Oh, carbon di- --." He doesn't know what it is, but he knows we have to control it. Well, ladies and gentlemen, without carbon dioxide, we croak. There can be no plant life, and if there's no plant life, there's no oxygen. On top of that -- yeah, Thomas Abinanti. Thomas is an idiot. On top of that, without greenhouse gases, the Earth freezes. We should be on our knees every day praying to God, "Thank you for carbon dioxide."

But I digress. "And what's more, the experts blame the global change on falling -- rather than climbing -- levels of greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide, "the currently vilified greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide -- could actually be the key to averting the chill."

So, according to these two scientists, we're heading into a global chill, maybe an age of an ice age, and we're gonna try and control carbon dioxide, which is the answer to global cooling. Why the hell don't we just try and leave it alone? What do you think of that -- no, they're not going to do that. It doesn't matter. Remember that idiot who called the first hour, those of you who were listening?

The libs don't care. They don't care about science, they don't care about evidence, they don't care about truth. They are pushing this global warming thing. They're gonna push this global warming thing all the way. They don't care how much damage they do to American industry. Look at them now -- they don't care. They don't care how much damage they'll do to the environment, as a matter of fact.

"The Earth has seen dramatic climate fluctuations -- veering between cold and warm extremes -- over the past 3 million years, the researchers say. And char- -- changes in the Earth's orbit and slowly falling levels of carbon dioxide are the cause." These scientists are saying, rather than increases in carbon dioxide, we are losing carbon dioxide. And I tried to explain before -- I tried to explain before that man has minimal impact on all of this, if any.

"The team says we are approaching a turning point, in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years, which will lead to the new ice sheets smothering much of Europe, Asia and South America." Well, we won't be here for that. But, I'm just pointing out how massive this is and how absurd it is to destroy our economy, to lose our liberties and private property, because Obama is going to, by executive fiat, order the EPA to define carbon dioxide as a pollutant. As a pollutant to be controlled. And I've said it before. Carbon dioxide is a minuscule amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's critical amount, but it's minuscule.

The vast majority of greenhouse gases is water vapor. Water vapor. Problem is they can't regulate water vapor. There's no way to regulate water vapor. Because you can't really regulate plants; you can't really regulate condensation. And so they go after carbon dioxide, which is crucial to our survival on the face of the Earth. We'll be right back.

In a November 19 blog post on ABCNews.com, reporter Matt Jaffe uncritically reported that in a November 13 speech at Catholic University of America, Cardinal J. Francis Stafford "railed against a speech [President-elect Barack] Obama gave July 17, 2007, to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America when the Illinois lawmaker reiterated his support of Roe v. Wade, saying he didn't want his two daughters, Malia and Sasha, to be 'punished by a pregnancy.' " But Stafford's assertion contains several falsehoods, none of which Jaffe corrected or otherwise noted. Obama did not say the word "punished" - or refer to being "punished" with "a pregnancy" or otherwise -- at any point during his July 17, 2007, Planned Parenthood speech. Obama did use the phrase "punished with a baby" during a March 29, 2008, campaign event in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but as Media Matters for America has previously documented, Obama was referring to sex education -- not Roe v. Wade or abortion generally -- when he said during that event: "I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

According to audio posted by Catholic University of America's The Tower, during the November 13 speech, Stafford claimed of Obama:

His clenched jaw was seen at his talk before the Planned Parenthood supporters July 17, 2007. There he asserted, quote, and I'm quoting, somewhat out of context but not out of his meaning, "We are not only going to win this election, but also we are going to transform this nation. The first thing I will do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act -- FOCA. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. I don't want my daughters punished -- punished by a pregnancy." "On this issue," he continued, "I will not yield on the issues that we're going to [inaudible]." End of quote. Note the way the president-elect wished to describe the killing of his unborn grandchild. His daughters must not be quote, "punished - punished," by pregnancy.

But contrary to Stafford's claim, Obama did not use the phrase "punished by a pregnancy" or even the word "punished" at any point during the July 17, 2007, Planned Parenthood speech.

During the March 29, 2008, campaign event in Pennsylvania, while discussing sex education - not abortion -- Obama said:

So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions.

From the March 29 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl 2008:

MARY SNOW (CNN correspondent): Welcome back to CNN's edition of Ballot Bowl. This is a chance for you to hear directly from the candidates. I'm Mary Snow in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where Senator Barack Obama is holding a town hall meeting right now, taking questions from the audience. Let's go straight to Senator Barack Obama; he just was asked a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls. Here's Senator Barack Obama.

OBAMA: -- or we give them really expensive surgery and we don't spend money on the front end keeping people healthy in the first place. So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.

But we should also provide better treatment. And we should focus on those sectors where it's prevalent and we've got to get over the stigma because understand that the fastest growth in HIV/AIDS is in heterosexuals, not gays. And so, we've got to get out of that stigma that we still have around it. It's connected also to drug use. So, one of the things we have to do is to start thinking about better substance abuse treatment programs around drugs and not just treat it as a criminal justice issue. Treat it as a public health issue as well.

From Jaffe's November 19 ABCNews.com post:

Stafford, who has worked at the Vatican for 12 years and heads the Apostolic Penitentiary, said that, on Nov. 4, "a cultural earthquake hit America" when Obama was elected, after campaigning on an "extremist anti-life platform.

"He appears to be a relaxed, smiling man. His rhetorical skills, as I mentioned, are very highly developed," Stafford noted.

"But under all of that grace and charm, there is a tautness of will, a clenched jaw, a state of constant alertness, to attack and resist any external influence that might affect his will."

Specifically, Stafford railed against a speech Obama gave July 17, 2007, to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America when the Illinois lawmaker reiterated his support of Roe v. Wade, saying he didn't want his two daughters, Malia and Sasha, to be "punished by a pregnancy."

Also last week, as reported here, a South Carolina priest was repudiated for saying Catholic Obama supporters need penance before taking communion, "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

FoxNews.com contributor Andrea Tantaros compared Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton to "the Menendez brothers" during a discussion on the November 19 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes about whether President-elect Barack Obama would nominate Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. After co-host Alan Colmes asked Tantaros whether, in her judgment, Obama had selected "one good person yet" for his Cabinet, and also asked her to "[n]ame one good thing he's [Obama] done," Tantaros said that if Obama "select[s] Hillary Clinton and Bill ... it would be akin to a family adopting the Menendez brothers, if they took them on." Erik and Lyle Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder in 1996 for shooting their parents to death.

Earlier on Hannity & Colmes, Tantaros said Obama's strategy for nominating Hillary Clinton would be to "keep your friends close and your enemies under your thumb."

From the November 19 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

TANTAROS: Oh, it's gonna be quite a circus if all these appointments go through.

ALAN COLMES (co-host): But Tom Daschle?

TANTAROS: I think -- I think the list of names -- Hillary Clinton, she's the most hawkish out of all of them. But this isn't just keep your friends close and your enemies closer, Alan. This is keep your friends close and your enemies under your thumb.

COLMES: I see.

TANTAROS: By selecting these Clintonistas, he's putting a down payment on an eight-year term -

COLMES: I see.

TANTAROS: -- and I don't think Hillary wants it.

COLMES: All right, so -- I see.

TANTAROS: If I were Hillary, I wouldn't want to be under Barack Obama's thumb. Would you?

COLMES: All right. You know, it's - you know, the guy -- he can do nothing right in the eyes of some conservatives, right Julie? I mean, there's nothing he can do. No matter who he would pick, they'd find a reason, "Oh, my God, look what he's doing." Either they have no experience, or they have experience, and they criticize either way.

JULIE MENIN (Women's Campaign Forum board member): Well, that's exactly right. I think he's picked absolutely amazing people. I mean, Tom Daschle has experience as a former Senate majority leader, and what I really think is it signals how important health care is to the Obama administration, and how they really want to help insure the 47 million Americans who -

COLMES: Right.

MENIN: -- don't have health insurance.

COLMES: Andrea, has he picked one person -- one good person yet? One? Can you name one good thing he's done?

TANTAROS: Mmm --

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): I can.

COLMES: One good thing? No, no, no, I'm talking to Julie.

HANNITY: I got an answer.

COLMES: You know, whenever I ask a guest a question, Hannity loves to answer me. Julie, name one good thing Obama's done.

TANTAROS: I'm Andrea.

COLMES: I mean Andrea. I know.

TANTAROS: You're confusing us.

COLMES: I'm just so confused.

TANTAROS: How can you confuse us, Alan.?

HANNITY: I got an answer.

COLMES: I know. Go ahead. Name one good thing he's done.

TANTAROS: No -- if he -

HANNITY: I have the answer.

TANTAROS: -- if he selects Hillary Clinton -- even though for them to select Hillary Clinton and Bill, it would be akin to a family adopting --

COLMES: Name one good thing he's done.

TANTAROS: akin to --

COLMES: That's all I'm asking.

TANTAROS: Hold on, hold on, hold on.

COLMES: I'm asking. You're not answering my question.

TANTAROS: It would be akin to a family adopting the Menendez brothers -

COLMES: Can you name one good thing he's done?

TANTAROS: -- if they took them on.

MENIN: Now, but wait a minute, Andrea --

TANTAROS: If he names Hillary, I think she'd be a better pick than the rest of the names on that list.

COLMES: I see.